Google Is Building a Chrome App-Based IDE

An anonymous reader writes "Google's Chromium team never ceases to amaze. Its latest project is a Chrome app-based Integrated Development Environment (IDE) codenamed Spark. For those who don't know, Chrome packaged apps are written in HTML, JavaScript, and CSS, but launch outside the browser, work offline by default, and access certain APIs not available to Web apps. In other words, they're Google's way of pushing the limits of the Web as a platform."

Comments

A browser is not an iPod

[Neuroelectronic]

and the way Google does this is by moving processing to the client but maintaining control of the APIs. Which raises the question, in my mind, exactly what value is Google providing that you can't get from existing open APIs and platforms? Seems like the only thing they are "providing" is an expectation in your clients that you support Chrome only, and an API that is guaranteed to break and need maintenance in the near future.

Re:A browser is not an iPod

[girlintraining]

the only thing they are "providing" is an expectation in your clients that you support Chrome only, and an API that is guaranteed to break and need maintenance in the near future

You're forgetting; A browser is supposed to be a sandbox app. That is, its job is to render data and present an interactive interface to the user -- but not allow automated access to resources on the host system. Their APIs break that. Badly. One need only look to the recent example of Java and it's failed sandbox to recognize the problem here.

Re:A browser is not an iPod

[Anonymous Coward]

what value are they getting? control. and, more people that use their shit, the more people see their name, make apps in their store (which generates lots of user data for google to mine), use their browser, use their tracking / analytics bullshit, use their mail, and when google makes an 'offline' client-side framework, think of all the data they can collect off local devices....

spam wonderful spam

[Joining Yet Again]

An "anonymous reader" wrote:

Google's Chromium team never ceases to amaze... ...Google's way of pushing the limits of the Web as a platform.

There's nothing amazing about making everything into a fucking HTML+Javascript app with a lowest common denominator of UI features requiring a PC built in the last 3 years and being sufficiently crippled that you'll want to store everything on the "cloud", i.e. on Google's servers.

No, fuck off, Google. I've done dumb terminals, and then terminals with a bit of intelligence+local storage to make things just bearable enough that you're still conned into giving yourself over to someone n thousand miles away who cares as much about your data as he worries about losing the $0/month you're paying him for service.

Re:spam wonderful spam

[drinkypoo]

unless you are the president of a large company or a politician, nobody cares about you ...

We were thinking you could fire 500,000, from one of the smaller companies?

Fire one million.

and if you were, they wouldn't have to break into google to steal your data.

Nobody has to break into Google to get your data, Google will hand it over to the government on request. Is it Evil to comply with an Evil order?

Re:spam wonderful spam

[Rob Y.]

Who said the cloud servers have to be Google's?
Any application based off of a central database has no business being built as a desktop application. The support of web-based apps is just orders of magnitude simpler, and they work better than fat-client apps when deployed across multiple locations. Anything that makes building this kind of app easier and cross-platform, while producing a richer user experience than existing HTML stuff is a good thing. You don't have to use it for everything, but why are you so opposed to it existing?

What the hell is the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't get the point, other than keeping computer people employed through layers and layers and layers and layers. As computers get more powerful, it seems software only gets more needlessly complicated and accomplishes the same thing at the same speed as it used to using old hardware and far less code and layers.

Re:What the hell is the point?

[squiggleslash]

Basically everyone recognizes Eclipse is a load of crap.

Some would say this is because it's a poorly designed mismatch of "integrated modules" written by developers who had half of a good idea, implemented half of it, and then gave up, leaving the rest of us to put up with things like autocompletion systems that physically get in the way, bizarre default file associations, and "features" like network access that are rendered virtually unusable by being buried by several layers of confusing "user friendly" GUIs.

Others, such as Google, however, believe the problem with Eclipse is that it's written in Java. If only it were written in something logical like CSS, maybe coupled with something readable like HTML, perhaps held together with something stable and feature complete like Javascript, which can control the other elements using something intelligently designed, standardized, and completely quirkless like the Document Object Model, you'd have an IDE that would truly shine.

Re:What the hell is the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

But what else are people supposed to do? Technology has allowed farming to occupy barely 1% of the population compared to 50% in the 19th century. We've decided as a society to not accept this progress to reduce the workweek. We still expect everyone to "work" to "earn" things, even though we all keep saying how "productive" we are and how technology is powerful.

Yet now we need both heads of a family to work, to pay more taxes than ever, to get fewer services as we hire more and more "competent" (they went to university!) people to manage, decide, do, undo, think, manage some more, do, undo and "produce" patterns of electrical charge on slivers on silicon that we all agreed "mean" something.

And all these people expect to be paid and they all think they're important. So we invent more and more absurd types of work. There's very little that needs doing, the rest is all theater.

Re:What the hell is the point?

[squiggleslash]

There was more than a dash.

That said, I kinda felt bad slamming JavaScript - I don't mean "Web browser" (which most people who slam JS mean, ie "I hate JS, there' no way to create a file, and manipulating the DOM sucks!" is not a criticism of JavaScript, it's a criticism of web standards that integrate JavaScript) - I think it's a woefully underrated language that gets a bad rap because most people have to use it in conjunction with the aforementioned terrible APIs.

It's clean (mostly), scores well for readability (there's a reason programmers prefer JSON to XML) and allows the kind of casual programming that, say, PHP is famous for without having any of the "features" PHP is infamous for.

I'm glad projects like node.js are taking off, these are giving the language, finally, a chance to shine.

That said, of course, in this case, we're talking about the holy hell that is JS-in-Web-APIs. Even given Google is giving the system additional APIs so it can save files locally, the fact it's going to have to interact with the user through the DOM will ensure the language continues to get slammed for no good reason.

Re: What the hell is the point?

[ShieldW0lf]

You hit the nail on the head. Keeping people employed is not a bad thing though. If a tool allows mediocre developers to be productive members of society
without retraining, that is a GOOD thing, even if the tool isn't optimal in the absolute sense.

Local webapp

[paugq]

First we tried to replace desktop apps with webapps and that's why we stood the awkwardness and immaturity of JavaScript, CSS and HTML. At least, we could justify it by saying "you'll be able to access the application from everywhere" (not true: new versions of browsers broke apps everytime)

Now, we are using those same immature and awkward technologies (JS, CSS, HTML) to develop local apps, which could be developed in C#, C++ or even Delphi in a fraction of time, integrate better with the platform and have more direct access to local APIs. I'm sorry but I don't understand this.

And yes, JavaScript, CSS, etc are way immature if you compare with what you can do in C# (WinForms, WPF), C++ (Qt, Boost) or even Delphi. The debugging process in itself is a nightmare.

Re:Local webapp

[Joining Yet Again]

Show them a traditional fat client and they think it's weird and awkward.

You're just making shit up. "Apps" are the Big New Thing. Never before have there been so many "traditional fat clients". The thing is they're only being released for mobile platforms, while the PC platform desperately tries to get rid of them. And why? Because two or three huge companies hate Microsoft, and think this is the way to wrest control of the APIs.

It's working.

But it's not for the user's benefit - at all.

Re:Local webapp

[Junta]

Adding my rant, particularly about how this is far from an isolated incident...

Some notable examples....

Palm's WebOS bragged on how developers *got* to use javascript and css to develop local applications.... Despite some decent UI design elements, the thing was a beast to develop for in that model.

Gnome 3 in it's infinite wisdom has gone to javascript and css for their shell...

iPhone in its original vision figured web browser would suffice before realizing pretty quickly that a decent framework would be called for...

Of course we also have the peculiar entity of Node.js, because web developers had to deal with languages that were just too reasonable in the webapp server space (yes, I know the I/O semantics natively act in a reasonable manner, but things like eventlet bring that sort of model to python).

It's related to the phenomenon where so many vocal developers believe if you do *anything* over a network it better be http. I've even seen scenarios where developers have advocated for http over TCP as IPC for multiple processes that are related by common fork() ancestory, meaning they couldn't possibly run on distinct servers (ignoring the massive security exposure it represented on top of the weirdness).

Now there are decent and reasonable things in the space (e.g. network apis that reasonably *can* map to REST semantics can be explored decently) among the abominations (e.g. SOAP which of course has been plaguing the world for a long time, but still it's the best example of a widespread moronic standard over http for no good reason on top of being a mess in and of itself). Of course everyone jumping on the 'REST' bandwagon means a great deal of interfaces claim to be that way without really usefully being in that camp, and even in apis where it's done mostly correctly, developers think they suddenly have no obligation to write client libraries or utilities or even so much as document it. It's the latter that seems to be most prolific sadly...

Re:Local webapp

[Desler]

Because the way to stop the issues with bloated web code is to add more layers!

Re:Local webapp

[Lennie]

Basically low cost, good enough and open platform wins every single time.

Look at the Internet and Linux as just an example.

open platform (which makes for a low barrier to entry): web -> check
good enough: web in many, many cases it is -> check
low cost: less brain power is needed to create 'web apps' than native apps, so there is a larger base of people you can hire from -> check

But hey, it is the same reason Valve thinks Steam Box can work, because it is an open platform.

Re:But...

[Blaskowicz]

Because the Chromebook. They already have a desktop web OS, which competes with Windows and Apple laptops, and it sure makes sense being able to develop web apps or Chrome apps from that environment.

Re:But...

[Joining Yet Again]

Imagine if Microsoft had released an MS-branded laptop which only allowed you to use HTML+Javascript and Silverlight apps, and then released a development environment which ran under Silverlight.

That'd be as retarded as this is.

Re:do you understand those words?

[digitalchinky]

The FileSystem API along with FileReader kind of blur this point already.

NO IE6 support?!

[Billly Gates]

What kind of terrible crackpots are these guys. Any PHB will tell you if it wont look right in IE 6 then something MUST be wrong with the developers.

After all they create things with FrontPage 2000 all the time. How hard can it be?!

Re:Do you understand those words?

[Joining Yet Again]

If "can sync data when you're online" => "web app" then thanks to rsync I've just wep-appified EVERYTHING, fuck yeah!

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

But this is Google! Goooooooooooogle!

Intriguing ...

[TrollstonButterbeans]

"They already have a desktop web OS [Chomebook], which competes with Windows and Apple laptops"

I guess Chromebooks are selling well --- but I haven't seen one in a store (I avoid "un-Best Buy") --- or one in real life.

Yet ...

I'll have to keep an eye out ...

Re:Intriguing ...

[noh8rz10]

dude, wtf? your best zinger for Best Buy is "un-Best Buy"? Here's one, how about "Worst Buy"? That's low hanging fruit. I'm not trying too hard right now because I'm drunk, but just imagine all the possibilities.

Nothing new. GIB has been a browser IDE for years.

[Qbertino]

What's all the excitement? The General Interface Builder is basically full-blown bsd licensed browser-based offline IDE of Eclipse proportions. It's quite amazing, certainly speeds up development of non-trivial GeneralInterface Ajax Applications quite a bit and is very well matured.

I'm not holding my breath for Google to catch up on GI anytime soon.

My 2 cents.

Web People vs. Desktop People

[Ukab the Great]

Here's my memory of what happened. Maybe it's falsely implanted by the NSA. Feel free to mod down -1 Heretical.

When the web first was popular, the web folks told us that web apps would replace desktop apps. And the desktop people said "what about dynamic and interactive GUI's that fat client apps provide?" And the web people told the desktop people "users won't really miss that. HTML by itself is good enough." And when no one was looking, the web folks snuck JavaScript and DHTML through the back door to cover up the insufficiency they denied existed with web apps

Then later on, the web folks told us that web apps would replace desktop apps. And the desktop people said "what about asynchronous network communication that fat client apps provide?" And the web people told the desktop people "users won't really miss that. HTML + DHTML + JavaScript by itself is good enough." And when no one was looking, the web folks snuck Ajax through the back door to cover up the insufficiency they denied existed with web apps.

Then later on still, the web folks told us that web apps would replace desktop apps. And the desktop people said "what about the offline storage that doesn't require network communication that fat client apps provide?" And the web people told the desktop people "users won't really miss that. HTML + DHTML + JavaScript + Ajax is good enough." And when no one was looking, the web folks snuck HTML5 offline storage through the door to cover up the insufficiency they denied existed with web apps.

From my point of view I see an endless cycle of web zealots who keep saying that fat clients are irrelevant, yet who seem to be adding one layer of kludge after another just to keep up with basic fat client functionality that they keep denying is unimportant to users. After all I've seen, I really can't take web people very seriously.

Re:Web People vs. Desktop People

[Joining Yet Again]

Beautifully put.

Re:Web People vs. Desktop People

[LoztInSpace]

Very nice. Don't forget also that once introduced, each iteration is then actually hailed as something revolutionary rather than something missing and that was solved/commonplace years ago.

Re:Web People vs. Desktop People

[swillden]

So, what's the next insufficiency? At some point the web folks will say that web apps can replace desktop apps, and there won't be anything left that isn't covered. I think we're actually getting very close to that point.

Re:Web People vs. Desktop People

[jemmyw]

This wording is comparable to the way stupid people understand evolution. "The giraffe wanted to eat the leaves high on the tree so it grew a long neck". Nobody had these conversations. Folks were just trying to get shit done. Capabilities have been added to browsers, but not always driven by the needs and requirements of those making the websites. Look at AJAX - it was an ActiveX component accessible from IE and it took quite a long time before the common use of it was realized. It was not a case of the secretive cabal of web designers getting together and dreaming it up to combat the free world of desktop programs.

And much of this has been user driven. When webmail become popular no one was systematically breaking into houses and deleting all desktop email clients from people's computers in order to force them to use a web based application. I'm not arguing that it is a well informed decision either (I use a desktop email client).

I can't understand software anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

What's next? An IDE that lets me browse the Web? A word processor that lets me drive CNC machinery?

Embrace and extend

[goombah99]

Do you remember those words. That was how Microsoft set the web back 20 years by killing standards compliance. Now google is the evil.

Re:Embrace and extend

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Except they're not forcing these extensions on anyone, Chrome the browser is still very much W3C compliant (for better or worse). It's just that it has an "extra mode" for running something HTML-based outside normal web browsing. I say let them experiment with whatever they want, that's perfectly fine with me.

Re:Embrace and extend

[Rob Y.]

Perhaps, but at least Chrome is available on multiple platforms. Microsoft non-compliance was aimed at lock-in to Windows. Google's seems to be aimed at making it possible to do most everything from a 'web browser'. A loftier goal and hard to call 'evil'. Where do new standards come from if not this kind of experimentaion?

Haven't we heard this before?

[Karlt1]

2007 Apple - you don't need native apps. You can build great web apps. Developers complain. Apple released a native SDK.

2009 Palm. You can build great apps using the web technologies you already know. Developers complain. Palm releases native SDK.

2011 RIM announces that you can build great apps using the technology you know. Developers complain. RIM releases native SDK.

Makes some sense even to use HTTP for IPC...

[SuperKendall]

I've even seen scenarios where developers have advocated for http over TCP as IPC for multiple processes that are related by common fork() ancestry

Although I admit it sounds a bit odd on the face of it you get to use whatever frameworks help you deal with REST communications, plus also later you could more easily actually move those operations to separate servers.

SOAP which of course has been plaguing the world for a long time

It has been but it's really a paper tiger at this point, few people use SOAP anymore, most everyone has moved to JSON over REST because of the many advantages.

Even the most imperfect of REST implementations is still lots nicer to deal with than the best SOAP implementation.

When the public can develop only web apps

[tepples]

Often a device manufacturer is willing to expose a web browser but not a compiler to the unwashed masses of amateur developers. For example, the first Wii homebrew games appeared in early 2007 as Flash objects and JavaScript programs running inside the "Internet Channel" browser by Opera.

Komodo, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, basically Google is taking it on itself to do for Chrome what ActiveState did for Mozilla years ago -- which led to the excellent and constantly improving Komodo IDE (build on the Mozilla framework)?

Re:Collaboration

[Joining Yet Again]

Remind me again why developers would not install development software? If you're sitting at a PC 8+ hours a day for weeks/months/years then you're sure as hell going to spend 30-60 minutes (or 5-10 minutes, if your IT dept are good) setting everything up properly to make it as efficient as possible.

Re:Do you understand those words?

[aaaaaaargh!]

As if HTML, CSS and Javascript was a desirable combination for anything ...